search
top

Conspiracy!

Tam has a look at the reality of the Iowa Caucus debacle. This whole affair was made for conspiracy theorist. I admit I’m quite amused at the whole thing. On one had, I can totally see a software team being that incompetent, especially if it’s all former Hillary people right out of some code camp. What I’d like to believe, is that this was a legit attempt to rig the election for establishment Dems, but they screwed the app meant to do it up so bad the plot was foiled! But it’s generally a good rule to never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.

15 Responses to “Conspiracy!”

  1. Joe says:

    That level of incompetence is malice in and of it’s own right, Sebastian. The DNC also instituted last-minute rules changes before the Iowa Caucus being very favorable to Billionaires, contradictory to what the Democrat Party preaches in being for the little guy.

    I sincerely hope that people are paying attention to the 2020 Democrat Presidential Primary, as well as the fact that the social media and mainstream media waves are being saturated by Bloomberg. Joe Biden is looking like a hapless corpse, and I have a suspicion that given the recent Presidential Primary Rules Changes by the DNC, Bloomberg has already bought off the 2020 Democrat Presidential Nomination away from Bernie Sanders.

    Bloomberg’s flooding of the advertising waves is beyond annoying; it’s now alarming. He has his own Media Company and Big Tech Firm, so not only is he a Wallstreet Mogul, he’s one of the Big Tech Oligarchs of Silicon Valley.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      Better make sure Bloomberg isn’t peering into your window or hiding under your bed in the world of JOE!!!

      • Alpheus says:

        I do not see why Joe is wrong. I’m not quite sure it’s alarming, but it’s deeply annoying. In the end, though, I think Bloomberg’s arrogance will come to naught.

        But it’s still nonetheless disturbing that someone might be able to buy a nomination, if not an election….

  2. Andy B. says:

    The whole purpose of politics is to secure and route public money to yourself, your friends, and your faction; that is the Ideology of the Universe. It is true of the DNC, the RNC, and the NRA.

    In this case I vote for incompetence. A software company was created by Demo operatives and manned with incompetents, that proliferate in the software industry; the incompetents are most readily available not only because they make up the vast majority, but because they are most likely to be between gigs.

    In principle that is why the RKBA Movement has always been more sound and fury than accomplishment, but that is too long a story. (See, “National Association for Gun Rights.” Also the recent focus on Iowa made me recall “Ron Paul Campaign.”)

    • Richard says:

      There is apparently a PAC associated with the software firm. Huh. But the major funders are Soros, a bunch of unions and a selection of individuals who are Clintonistas of various stripes. Some suspicions that make sense to me are that the intent was not to whack Bernie but to whack Iowa so as to make the leading edge less white.

  3. Andy B. says:

    “There is apparently a PAC associated with the software firm.”

    It all strikes me as analogous to some of the “political consultancies” or “communications” firms I’ve known, which were pretty open-ended in terms of what sorts of businesses they actually were engaged in. I’ve sort of lost direct touch over the last 20 years, but there were some I knew that were in the “political printing” business, so it would not surprise me today if some are in the “political software” business.

    Tactically, without naming names, in the RKBA business there are organizations that raise money under the RKBA banner, and then spend it on printing and other services provided by companies owned by the same people running the RKBA fronts. I suspect something similar was going on with the software outfit.

    • Richard says:

      Sure there is a lot of corruption but Soros always does a very good job on keeping focus on what is important to him.

  4. Flight-ER-Doc says:

    All they had to do is take the totals from each of 1670 precincts and add them up.

    Having each precinct captain write them on a piece of paper, take a picture on their phone and send it to HQ would have been more than needed: The total and writing at the precinct would have witnesses, as wood the transfering the numbers to a simple spreadsheet at the state HQ…

    Or hell, they could have DRIVEN the information in, in 5 hours or less….

    This was designed to create confusion..nothing more. And it was successful. I smell Clinton/Soros ichor in there…

  5. Billll says:

    When you consider the party involved, the candidates involved, and all the candidates supporters, no one should be the least bit surprised that there was skulduggery involved. Myself, I would have been rather disappointed if it were to transpire that there wasn’t. Those people are pretty good at it and have a lot of experience. If no funny business were to come to light I would assume that someone from Chicago was behind it.

    • 399 says:

      “Those people are pretty good at it and have a lot of experience.”

      I assume you are talking about the Russians, because nothing that happened in Iowa is going to benefit any of the Democrat candidates or their party.

  6. anon says:

    The core issue was pretty simple: someone accidentally uploaded a 4 year old build of the software, and no matter what data was entered, the winner kept coming up ‘Hillary’.

  7. Alpheus says:

    As someone experienced in the software industry, I cannot help but make two observations.

    (1) It’s amazing how much can be enabled by functioning software. Stuff that’s difficult or impossible to do before becomes easy, or at least doable, because of a system that’s properly designed to handle that complexity.

    (2) It’s amazing how much can be screwed up because someone looked at a simple process and said “Hey, I bet we can make it even simpler!” and proceed to design an overly-complicated, over-designed solution that no one understands, and puts sand in the gears of something that could function just fine without software!

    • Andy B. says:

      “It’s amazing how much can be screwed up because someone looked at a simple process and said “Hey, I bet we can make it even simpler!”

      Just to clarify one of my above comments, that’s an example of what I mean by “incompetence.”

      I was never in the software business, but I saw analogies as an engineer. Usually when someone perceived a problem as “simple”, it meant they had no understanding of the problem at all.

      With a little understanding the problem may in fact have been relatively simple. But pronouncing “no problem!” usually indicated ignorance.

  8. SiGraybeard says:

    But it’s generally a good rule to never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.

    Remember, these two are not mutually exclusive. They can be both malicious and incompetent, and often are.

    • Andy B. says:

      “They can be both malicious and incompetent, and often are.”

      Very astute! I like it!

      Plus, maliciousness often grows until it leads to incompetence via abandonment of caution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top